These requirements were implemented through an 
interim rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries 
Service on 7 March 1989. A final rule was issued on 
30 March 1990. Under those regulations, intermedi- 
ary nations were not required to implement a ban on 
tuna imports from a country embargoed by the United 
States if the Service were satisfied that the intermedi- 
ary nation imports tuna products only from sources 
other than the embargoed country. The regulations 
also specified that an intermediary nation embargo 
would only apply to yellowfin tuna and tuna products 
harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific by a fishing 
nation that is subject to a primary embargo. 
As discussed below, Earth Island Institute success- 
fully challenged the Service’s interpretation of the 
applicability and breadth of the tuna embargoes 
required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s 
intermediary nation provision. The court ruled that a 
secondary embargo must be imposed unless the 
intermediary nation has acted to prohibit the importa- 
tion of yellowfin tuna subject to a primary embargo 
by the United States. It also found that intermediary 
nation embargoes apply to all yellowfin tuna from the 
intermediary nation regardless of where or how the 
tuna were harvested. 
As a result of that ruling, secondary embargoes 
were imposed on all yellowfin tuna and tuna products 
imported from 20 intermediary nations effective 31 
January 1992. The secondary embargoes were 
subsequently lifted for nine of those nations when they 
submitted documentation sufficient to demonstrate that 
they either were not intermediary nations or had acted 
to ban yellowfin tuna imports from those nations 
subject to the primary embargoes. 
On 30 March 1992 the National Fisheries Institute 
petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service to 
revise its regulatory definition of “intermediary 
nation.” The petitioners believed that a redefinition 
to exclude nations that import only “dolphin-safe” 
tuna would be consistent with the requirements of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Service re- 
viewed that petition and determined that a redefinition 
was permissible under the statutory language and the 
court’s ruling. After submitting its revised definition 
of “intermediary nation” to the court for review, the 
Service adopted it as an interim rule on 11 September 
105 
Chapter IV — Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions 
1992. The new definition excluded those nations that 
certify and provide reasonable proof that they have 
not, within the preceding six months, imported any 
yellowfin tuna or tuna products subject to a direct ban 
on importation into the United States. 
Congress also addressed the question of intermedi- 
ary nations through passage of the International 
Dolphin Conservation Act of 1992. That Act, signed 
into law on 26 October 1992, statutorily defined the 
term “intermediary nation.” The High Seas Driftnet 
Enforcement Act, enacted on 2 November 1992, also 
defined the term “intermediary nation.” It also 
amended the substantive provisions of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act regarding intermediary 
nations. While the provisions of these new laws are 
not identical, they are consistent with the interim rule 
adopted by the Service. Only those nations that 
import yellowfin tuna and tuna products from harvest- 
ing nations subject to an embargo on direct exports to 
the United States are considered to be intermediary 
nations. Any nation that certifies and provides 
reasonable proof that it has not imported tuna from an 
embargoed harvesting nation within the previous six 
months is not subject to a secondary embargo. 
Under the new statutory provisions, secondary 
embargoes against tuna imports from seven countries 
were lifted. At the end of 1992 secondary embargoes 
remained in effect for four intermediary nations, 
Costa Rica, Italy, Japan, and Spain. 
Regardless of whether it is a harvesting nation or 
an intermediary nation, any nation from which tuna 
has been embargoed for six months is to be certified 
by the Secretary of Commerce and may face addition- 
al sanctions under the Pelly Amendment. While both 
harvesting nations and intermediary nations have been 
certified, no sanctions on other fish products have 
been imposed. 
Report to Congress — The 1988 amendments to 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act required the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to convene annual 
meetings with representatives of conservation groups, 
the tuna fishing industry, and other interested parties 
to discuss the results of efforts to reduce the incidental 
mortality of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific 
tuna fishery and to develop plans for such efforts 
